IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.222 of 2006
N.Chinnathai ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The District Magistrate and
The District Collector,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
Detention Order C3.D.O. No.14/2006 dated 11.02.2006 passed by the second
respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, quash the same, direct the
respondent to produce detenu Nagaraj S/o. Govindan, now confined in Central
Prison, Vellore, before Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam
^For Respondents : Mr. M.Babu Muthu Meeran,
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner herein challenges the order of detention, dated
11.0 2.2006, detaining her husband by name Nagaraj as Bootlegger as
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the detenu was not supplied with the relied on documents, which vitiates
the ultimate order of detention. By taking us through para No.5 of the
grounds of detention, learned counsel contended that though the Detaining
Authority mentioned the details regarding the bail petition filed before the
District Court as well as this Court, copies of those documents were not
supplied to the detenu, which prevented him from making effective
representation, and also infringed the right given to him under Article 22 (5)
of the Constitution.
4. On going through the specific reference made in paragraph No.5
relating to the orders passed by the District Court and this Court as well as
pendency of Criminal Original Petition to enlarge the detenu on bail, we are
of the view that those documents were heavily relied on by the Detaining
Authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction as regards the
detenu’s coming out on bail. In such circumstances, we hold that failure to
supply those documents vitiates the ultimate detention order.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
JI
To
1. Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. District Magistrate and
District Collector, Vellore.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.